When inquiring with SQF consultants regarding their services and fees, one stated that they can be available during the audit and can talk with the auditor and possibly reduce majors to minors and minors to OIs. Is this true?
Those of you that have had a consultant, was it worth it? Where were they most useful? Any pitfalls to watch out for?
Hello Lacey,
Fundamentally, having the consultant there during the audit to "help" is really at odds with the concept of ownership of the
food safety system. Yes, having them there would be good, but really, metaphorically: when a parent sees their child off to university/college, they should have to be confident that they have provided that child with all the tools/knowledge/lessons/principles to successes and learn on their own. IMO having the consultant holding your hand through an audit prevents the impact of learning for the food packing organization. Again, it defies the principle of ownership of the food safety/quality system.
Personally, not the intent, in the contract work I have done I have sorta done this; the impact on senior management gets diluted. However, I was glad to be there to see how effective my "system" worked and had the feedback to make it better.
Heck, in this market, one could most likely set up SQF document systems and have further contracts to hold food producers hands through every annual audit, but as it defies the principle, I don't think it would be sustainable: helping "pass" the audit in this manner will not make the company any better (as it then will always be understood as "just more bureaucracy" and, IMO, not the intent of the GFSI benchmarks).
My 2 cents.
Cheers,
-Cory
Edited by baron, 16 February 2013 - 06:15 PM.